Sum of my parts are greater than others

[bcholmes]

The first time I heard the saying "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts", I didn't get it. I was a very mathematical kid, see. I probably thought about two and two and their sum, four. I sometimes have a dreadful tendency toward cluelessness. (As an aside, it took me one hell of a long time to understand the saying, "People who live in glass houses...")

I think my "Ah-ha" moment for that saying happened when one of my math teachers talked about how the "whole" has something that the "sum of the parts" doesn't have -- a relationship. Thing One has such-and-such a relationship with Thing Two.

But there's something about the way of seeing that I was coming from that I'm interested in talking about. I was looking at the world in a way that made the things obvious and the relationships invisible. So I couldn't grok the idea that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. Is that just a consequence of living in a materialistic world?

I've been thinking about this in terms of eXtreme Programming. I was recently looking at a copy of Questioning Extreme Programming. I was rather annoyed that the author, by his own admission, hadn't even tried eXtreme Programming before he decided to write a book criticizing it.

And here's a claim that I keep hearing again and again: that the XP practices have been around since the Stone Age of software development. Here's one review from Amazon.ca:

Most programmers have used some form of XP over the years. Actually it dates back to times when there was no software development lifecycles. [...] For the most part however, I find that it causes a lot of extra re-work, delays getting the finished project implemented as the user wants it, and uses a lot of time re-building, re-testing, excessive version control, re-implementing, changes, changes, changes, and lots of scope creep and gold-plating. Not only that but when I was programming it was not beneficial to have another programmer or anyone breathing down my neck. I need complete focus and concentration for long periods of time. It seems that things like this always tend to run in circles. With the younger generations trying what the older generations tried and then realizing you cannot skip the up-front work.

Note what the reviewer says:

• XP is nothing new.
• Despite being around forever, it's too irritating.
• Pair programming is dumb.
• I'm not currently a programmer, so I possibly haven't tried XP
• XP is a "kid" thing. The kids hafta grow up.

Can you say 'patronizing'? I knew you could.

This whole "XP is nothing new" is the thing that I'm interested in. Usually, when I talk about XP, I end up saying, as most people say, "there are these twelve practices, see?"

But.

XP is greater than the sum of the twelve practices.

Sure, chances are most people have been on a project that has used a few of those practices. But the ah-ha moment of XP happens not because of the "things" but because of the relationships. The practices play off of one another and create (dare I say it?) synergies that aren't apparent when you itemize the practices.

How to describe this episteme? This way of seeing? "Thing-oriented"? And what kind of strategies can one use to break out of that way of seeing?

Comments

[supergee.livejournal.com]

The first two complaints sound a bit like "Pornography is diabolically tempting" and "Pornogrphy is really dull," when spoken by the same person, as they often are.

[purplesofa.livejournal.com]

Your need for thing/relationship integration reminds me of when I understood the value of naming the relationships in data models. This is a step in the move from physical database design towards conceptual information modelling.

It also reminds me of the (trite but true) explanations of polyamorous love multiplying, not dividing. 1+1 = 2, plus 1 relationship to maintain. 1+1+1 = 3, plus 4 relationships to maintain.

[kalikanzara.livejournal.com]

As far as words to describe it, there's the "not seeing the forest because of the trees", which isn't as short and sweet as non-holistically, which is the best I'm coming up with.

As for not seeing that way, hmm. I'm reminded of a chemistly lecture I attended once on Entropy, where the lecturre enthusiastically mixed two liquids, and then noted that, although it was still just water and water and an alcohol ("Well, maybe it isn't - let's sample the mixture...nope, still good" - RPI was a drinxing school, let me say it got their attention) it was really not something you could any longer take the parts out of, or recognize easily as seperate.

That lecture stuck with me, because I'd sometimes thought about chemistry and chemical formulas and things as just "assemble the parts", ie, C7H5N3O9 (I may be off one and I know it should be possible to make it pretty in HTML but I just woke up...) is the formula for TNT. Or, well, it's *a* formula for TNT. It really actually matters how you put it together, just mixing it all in a bowl makes a mess.

Or, say, looking at ice. It's just water, really. Just that you take water, and cold, and combine them somehow, and suddenly you can throw snowballs. OR take a supercooled liquid (very still night, put the 2 liter of Mt. Dew out in the -20 F winter)...bring it in, still liquid....then open it. Instant slush.
It's still exactly the parts it had, but somehow it's more than that, something changed.

Carbon steel might be another example of looking at something that's hard to see the "things", it's iron and charcoal, yes, but...it's really different. More than that.

Oh, and then there's that picture, drawn in such a way that the brain can identify a young woman, or an old woman. I esud to stare at that until I could see both at will. It was kinda cool...that's not exactly the same thing, but it is a perception shifting thing.

I dunno, I'm rattling off examples, bu I'm hoping the sum of the examples will be more than just the examples, and I'm not sure that just having examples works. But it's the strategy that came to mind.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping the sum of the examples will be more than just the examples

<swoon> Nicely done.

[snickerpuss.livejournal.com]

You remind me of that thing you can say to chunky people when they suggest you might want to lose weight: "People who live in fat houses shouldn't throw donuts." Unfortunately, the rest of all that computer stuff you were talking about went right over my head. Mmmmm. Donuts...

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Mrr... Yeah, eXP can work, and conceptually it's a great and productive thing. The drawback/problem/whatever is the same as with any other management style: not all the bits work in every situation and following a book isn't a good substitute for a team leader actually thinking and working on building an appropriate structure. Many structures are good ones in their own places. Using the parts of each that help a given team really does lead to a big increase in productive output, but there does have to be the input of picking the right bits.

I guess what really may be helping is spurring the team leaders to really think about their role and the skills and habits of the people they have working for them. And that kind of analysis can gain productivity for tiny little changes...

[futabachan.livejournal.com]

How to describe this episteme? This way of seeing?


"Synthetic?" "Holistic?"